Darwin smacked in new U.S. poll (69% of Americans Want alternate theories allowed in class)

WorldnetDaily.Com ^ | 03/07/2006

[Dimensio]

On a previous evolution thread, I compiled a few challenges to evolution. What's wrong with using them again, especially when my post was directed not to you, busybody, but to another poster whom I had never shared those points with before.

I believe that the objection is over providing information to which an extensive rebuttal has been written, in spite of the fact that you never provided a response to the rebuttal.

[philetus]

The 21% will probably win.

[ahayes]

On a previous evolution thread, I compiled a few challenges to evolution. What's wrong with using them again, especially when my post was directed not to you, busybody, but to another poster whom I had never shared those points with before.

The problem is your complaints were addressed on the other thread, yet you posted them again as if no one had been able to come up with a reasonable answer to them.

Trust me, we've all seen those same supposed challenges time and again. Nothing new under the sun. . .

[Hill of Tara]

sorry about that, I meant to provide a response, I must have forgotten to.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"true, but some things are more certain than others, for example, the process of how the digestive system works, which is pretty much known as fact and not a theory."

Um, no.

[RightWhale]

Most scientists don't care one way or the other about Darwinian evolution; it's of more interest to sociologists. Somebody could take a poll of historians, psychologists and political scientists, but that is not how science is done. Repeal the law of evolution, it won't make the slightest difference, but it would possibly please those who also don't like algebra.

[norton]

"Near as I can tell from observation, evolution is not about science at all; it's about lifestyles and the protection of lifestyles."

The scientific community, precisely like the legal community, depends on defending/maintaining/trusting in, a system.

However, ask a lawyer and he or she will admit that justice is secondary to upholding that system.
Ask a scientist, and he or she will most likely state that the system 'proves' the most widely accepted theories within its umbrella.

Same dependence, same central theme ... except that one is engaged in finding means to redefine the core and the other is engaged in defending the findings of those who published previously.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" No it doesn't. The TOE does not address the origin of life. And I'm sure you've had that pointed out to you before."

Don't bother. He regurgitates the same exact line on every crevo thread he posts on. He won't engage your point.

[RightWhale]

What about pre-Darwinian evolution, can we keep that?

[Right Wing Professor]

Most scientists don't care one way or the other about Darwinian evolution; it's of more interest to sociologists.

Huh?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" No one likes the zealot atheist evolutionites because they are obnoxious and overbearing and now teaming up with the ACLU."

But you're not a creationist... lol

[RightWhale]

For example, it was never even mentioned in my physics classes.

[RHINO369]

Actually sociologists largly ignore evolution in human beings and blame differences between groups of people as being "learned from society".

[Coyoteman]

Two opposing view points, each with strong support and deep roots, should be allowed to face one another - not be dictated by courts or by a stone wall.

Not even a hint of following the scientific method in your post. Science provides a method for deciding between or among competing theories.

However, most of the discussion on these threads has centered around whether to permit the teaching of ID in science classes. ID is not a scientific theory, and does not qualify.

Actually, the argument you have laid out would be just as valid for promoting the teaching evolution in churches. Is that what you are advocating?

[Hill of Tara]

Why not?

[RHINO369]

For example, it was never even mentioned in my physics classes. Ofcourse its not mentioned in physics courses!

[Right Wing Professor]

For example, it was never even mentioned in my physics classes.

You're kidding me. They didn't try to teach you biology in physics class? What kind of school was this?

[balrog666]

Would you care to guess the percentage of their annual budget that the Discovery Institute spends on public relations vs. actually doing science?

Would that really be a guess?

[RightWhale]

I was told physics was a science, so if scientists are to care about this issue wouldn't the profs have brought it up at some point? It wasn't on the senior comprehensive test either.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

OK, so how many Americans support teaching Earth, Air, Fire, and Water as the four elements over teaching the periodic table?